Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I find it troubling when P says knows so little about her tenant that today is first time they'really meeting........

It was an indication of how much of a negligent absentee landlord she was; even the handyman said that he met the tenant only just before her moving out, which means they really did not do much maintenance in the unit over the years (thankfully tenant was very handy with repairs). Landlord seemed totally unrepentant about her unprofessional practices. 

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Even Judge Mike couldn't find anything good to say about her.

Which says a lot about how awful a person she truly was if even MC's bleeding heart remained untouched by her claims.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Carolina Girl]

The defendant in yesterday's case was probably the most well-spoken and polite litigant I have ever encountered on this show.  No real recriminations when speaking of the obviously neglectful landlord - only the dispute over the amount of the deposit.

In the halterview, did the defendant hint that her spouse had died?  If so, my heart really hurts for her.  

[AZChristian]

18 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

In the halterview, did the defendant hint that her spouse had died?  If so, my heart really hurts for her.  

Yes.  She said that she had lost the person who had been central to her life for the last 20 years.

And plaintiff/landlord piped up and said, "I've gone through grief as well" (with no emotion).

[SRTouch]

27 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Yes.  She said that she had lost the person who had been central to her life for the last 20 years.

And plaintiff/landlord piped up and said, "I've gone through grief as well" (with no emotion).

Yes, broke down for a moment, then apologized, saying she really did not mean to make a scene..........

and yes, heartless P immediately says she had suffered losses, too, and is back to referring to D as 'him'

[Carolina Girl]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Yes, broke down for a moment, then apologized, saying she really did not mean to make a scene..........

and yes, heartless P immediately says she had suffered losses, too, and is back to referring to D as 'him'

You can add that plaintiff to my ever-growing list of people I just want to kick in the ass if I meet them on the street.

[AngelaHunter]

I watch this only sporadically, but I just caught the hilarious case of the overly-made up, overly coiffed and over-aged dim witted himbo tennis instructor suing his former "student" for charges on a credit card he gave her, to "help his credit rating" or some nonsense. Def does this for him in spite of her labelling him as a "notorious" sexual harasser and pervert or maybe even the Anti-Christ.

Former student Def (who looked as though she sucks lemons for a living) says she used the card, as per P's request, to help P's artist mother in South Africa get an "online presence" with a website and promotion for her artwork. Seems that job, totalling 5K blown on the card, included D using it for a 250$ eyebrow job(?), Hulu, Netflix and paying her car insurance, just to name a few things. There was a brief mention of plastic surgery but we don't know what kind. P, who doesn't bother his fuzzy little head with his own financial stuff and has women to deal with that, introduces his new girlfriend, the accountant, to explain what the hell is going on.

JDiM gets to the nasty center of layers through this rotten onion when she extracts the info that P and D used to be an item and that she was not just a student of his and in spite of him being so notorious stayed with him for years. Def has vile texts from Tennis Himbo, where he apparently gives her explicit requests some sort of sexual favours in exchange for forgiving some of D's debt. lowering it from 5K to 4K. New girlfriend is not perturbed by this. Desperation knows no limits, I guess. "Oops!" says plaintiff with a grin when given his own nasty texts to read. Def must have some unique sexual tricks if they are worth 1K.

Papa Mike, of course, thinks little lady D is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and that P "took advantage" of her. Sure he did. The other two beat him down asap and decide to give the creepy P the 4K both litigants agreed on.

Then we had the untidy little homeless sneaker hustler who surfs on couches until he rents a room from D and moves his shoe business there. He keeps his money - 2K - stuffed into the toe of one of his sneakers, since I guess for whatever reason, banks are out of the question. This is how he earns his living and I'm sure his enterprise handsomely provides support for the kiddies he whipped up with his "baby momma". Then we hear about him being assaulted (he provides the judges with a video of him lying on the sidewalk, out cold) in the hospital, sneakers stolen, fake cops coming to D's house to take the rest of the junk in P's room, presumably the stashed 2K as well. P says D stole his money and she locked him out after he got out of the hospital even though he paid for the month. She was scared. I doubt it. D claims she visited him in ICU because she's "a very caring person" and that she "doesn't know nothing" about the sneakers.  P calls his witness, upon whose couch he squatted, to confirm his tale. Witness starts by saying he and D used to date and blah blah. He's told to sit. It's all too outlandish. Again, Uncle Mike feels the lady is an innocent victim of the P. Again, he's rightfully outvoted and P is awarded 1700$ for his sneaker inventory, since that is all he can prove he had.

[AngelaHunter]

On 5/21/2020 at 5:27 PM, Carolina Girl said:

You can add that plaintiff to my ever-growing list of people I just want to kick in the ass if I meet them on the street.

I just watched this. I liked how plaintiff landlord declares with a smile and seemed proud of the fact that no, of course she never painted, changed the carpet or fixed anything in 16 years.

The def saying that not in all these 16 years were the funds or time available to install a necessary GFCI for whatever electical modifications (something to do with a water heater?) were made was annoying as well, especially coming from a former engineer. I just had one put in last week. Cost was about 40$ and it took very little time, nowhere near 16 years. Anyway, landlord was an obnoxious, hateful person, with the nickel-and-diming crap. Do these people not understand that this is their property to upkeep and where, in this case, someone has paid the astronomical, mind-boggling sum of about 150K for the privilege of living there, yet she has the gall to bitch about 75$ for some trivial shit. Your house, you take care of it. Oh, but that 20+-year-old dishwasher now...

[AngelaHunter]

Loved the big, strong, strapping, 34-year-old "professional student" who was so traumatized because the wormy, Gollum-like  little def ripped him off for 450$ on his old beater Lexus that he couldn't cope with the mental distress and anguish and had to quit school and that is the D's fault. He couldn't take a bus, you know, because that's beneath him and it might trigger him. Def said she wanted the car to live in, then says she has a foster child. The judges, of course, didn't believe the weasel but I really hope someone checked into this, just in case. When asked how anyone would let her foster a child to live in a car; "Err...umm". Poor fragile, delicate plaintiff got on Papa Mike's last nerve and he snarled at him to "Shut your mouth."

[Bazinga]

Thought the reward in today's prom dress case was ridiculous.  Why should the plaintiff get a free prom dress plus $500 for "emotional distress?"   She would have had to pay for a prom dress in any case.  She was not out the cost of the new dress.  I would have refunded the $200 deposit and not given her anything for the new dress, $800 shoes, or emotional distress.  Why was this situation deserving of emotional distress?  A lot worse things happen in various cases and litigants get nothing.  No way would Judge Judy have given her all that.  JM might have been more sympathetic but I don't think she would get a free dress out of JM.

Not a big fan of the Hot Bench judging.  Among other decisions, the two skiers who collided, I thought the smarmy defendant was right.  Plaintiff was cutting across the course, was her fault not the defendant's, just because he was higher up on the course.  Not like he can just stop. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/4/2020 at 2:43 PM, Bazinga said:

Among other decisions, the two skiers who collided, I thought the smarmy defendant was right. 

I thought so too, but I don't downhill ski so wasn't sure what was right. To me it was like she was in a car and got t-boned by going through a stop sign?

"I COULD HAVE DIED!" x 5. But you didn't.

[Florinaldo]

On 6/4/2020 at 2:43 PM, Bazinga said:

Thought the reward in today's prom dress case was ridiculous.

They treated this as a case of egregious mental abuse. It was just a dress. I suspect the seamstress may have worked according to the indications of the customer who wanted a somewhat risqué outfit, only to realise that her wishes led to something that was a little too far for her, and perhaps mostly for her mother. Prom dress cases are as irritating as wig cases; each time it's presented as if it involves a crime against humanity.

As for the ski case; she was clearly totally in the wrong crossing the course against all standard practice and common sense. But the judges somehow decided it was case of shared liability. They must have felt sorry for her because of her age.

[AZChristian]

29 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

As for the ski case; she was clearly totally in the wrong crossing the course against all standard practice and common sense. But the judges somehow decided it was case of shared liability. They must have felt sorry for her because of her age.

Or because as she repeated time after time, she "could have DIED."

I have never skied, and never will.  But I did look up "ski rules" and found this.  From what I read here, this was shared liability.

"Here are the seven rules of slope safety to keep you and others out of harm’s way:

• Always stay in control and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
• People ahead of you have the right of way. It’s your responsibility to avoid them.
• Don’t stop where you obstruct a trail or aren’t visible from above.
• Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
• Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
• Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
• Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride, and unload safely.

Ultimately, it’s up to each of us to use common sense, show courtesy to others, and be aware of our surroundings to stay safe on the slopes."

I don't really understand the logic of expecting someone barreling down a "black diamond" (VERY STEEP) ski slope to be able to stop.  Or someone even attempting to traverse a black diamond slope, knowing how steep it is and how fast people are going straight down the mountain.  

But, then, I don't understand the logic of strapping pieces of wood to one's feet and going out in the snow.

Edited June 7, 2020 by AZChristian
Added thought.

[Florinaldo]

On 6/7/2020 at 11:13 AM, AZChristian said:

But, then, I don't understand the logic of strapping pieces of wood to one's feet and going out in the snow.

Same here, especially if these are the rules of the slopes.

I do not know if her annoying refrain "I could have been killed!" helped sway the judges, especially the two women who at times are stricken by the dreaded "Corriero bleeding heart syndrome". Someone should have replied to that idiot plaintiff "he also could have been killed because of your stupid course of action", but I doubt it would have penetrated her shrieks or her thick skull.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

Haven't seen much HB lately - only record new episodes and guess we're in rerun hell. Didn't even know it, but DVR  recorded one yesterday. Sort of unusual, didn't particularly care for either litigant at first -- then it happened - these litigants brought evidence - well, P (tenant) brought evidence helping her case while D (landlord) also brought evidence also helping tenant's case....... Oh my, ROFL........ case over leaky roof and mold - new tenant notices leak and finds mold and immediately contacts property manager - nada, nothing happens - her toddler is asthmatic, developes pneumonia - tenant not waiting for property manager any longer, complains to housing authority - inspection find hazardous conditions and order issued to remediate within 7 days - D claims she never received notice, yet her agent, the property manager asked for an extension on 7 day deadline......... the best laugh comes when landlord tries to claim P damaged place - see, when P moved in she was smart enough to take photos showing condition - place sat vacant for awhile before her move in and not cleaned - so, anyway, she sent her pictures to property manager showing how bad place was BEFORE she moved in and has letter acknowledging receipt of pix with promise she won't be charged for damage in pix....... but LOL....... landlord kept deposit and is using those same pix to prove damages........ oh my, not even sure why I started out not liking P, maybe because at first it seemed like typical money grab, but this woman is GREAT!........ ok, not only does P have proof of everything she claims, but we have conclusive evidence D is lousy landlord who rented unsafe place, dragged feet getting it fixed  after city inspection/order, and came to court with tenant's BEFORE pix to prove damages allowing her to keep deposit...... ok, not complete slam dunk as P admits to leaving behind a piece of furniture, I think a desk, and judges allow Landlord $60 for getting rid of it......... the rest, we have that rare case where litigant DIDN'T go for lotto money, and is awarded everything to include lost wages......... I didn't see the lost wages evidence, but the judges were NOT HAPPY with landlord and may not have examined that too closely........ one of those rare times where even Judge Mike was pissed at litigant instead of making excuses - he got upset with landlord insisting she knew nothing while admitting her property manager did - I think all 3 judges explained to her that, in the eyes of the law, if her agent/property manager gets notice of unsafe living conditions it's the same as her getting that notice

Edited June 13, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

I just watched the case of the giant tree in Georgia falling on the smirking, cocky little guy's car.  A hurricane was on the way, and the def property owner had previously been put on notice by the city that the tree was leaning dangerously and was a hazard. She did nothing about it because it was hard to find someone to take it down and when she or her co-def. agent found someone it was too expensive. 6500$? Is that a reasonable price in GA or was the guy gouging because of the hurricane? I had a giant beech tree taken down and the stump ground out for 1900$.

Anyway, def refuses to pay for plaintiff's crushed car and her insurance won't pay since they used the ol' "Act of God" excuse to weasel their way out of it. JDiM and JA put the responsibility on the def, since she was told the tree was a danger and they called it negligence that she did nothing. Def's agent makes matters worse when he explains the trees there have no deep taproots because of all the granite in the ground. All the more reason to get on the case. Big help he was.

Papa Mike? He's getting worse. In chambers as they discussed it, he objected to use of the word "negligence". The other  two wanted to know why. "Well," he says, "she couldn't get someone to do and she couldn't afford it." This caused an outburst from the other two. Get real, Judge Mike.  Judgement for the P for the 1900$ he wanted. The def is just very VERY lucky he wasn't injured, crippled or killed because she didn't feel like paying to remove a danger from the property she owns. She doesn't live there, so no chance of her getting hurt when the tree crashed down.

[Florinaldo]

16 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

6500$? Is that a reasonable price in GA or was the guy gouging because of the hurricane?

I think she mentioned that tree-cutting businesses were swamped because of the coming hurricane, but I got the impression that she would not have paid even a hundred bucks to have that leaning disaster-in-waiting removed. She was only too happy to rely on the excuse her insurer used to not pay the clain.

Anytime a youngish female litigant is involved, judge MC's reasoning gets clouded because his reflex is to play the knight-errant swooping in to rescue a damsel in distress. It was plain negligence and his lame defence of her actions was plain silliness.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Silver Raven]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just watched the case of the giant tree in Georgia falling on the smirking, cocky little guy's car.  A hurricane was on the way, and the def property owner had previously been put on notice by the city that the tree was leaning dangerously and was a hazard. She did nothing about it because it was hard to find someone to take it down and when she or her co-def. agent found someone it was too expensive. 6500$? Is that a reasonable price in GA or was the guy gouging because of the hurricane? I had a giant beech tree taken down and the stump ground out for 1900$.

In the mountains of Southern California, where there are a lot of weekend cabins, there was a severe infestation of bark beetles destroying the evergreens.  The county ordered people to deal with the trees, but the cost was so expensive, people just started walking away from their cabins and letting the county foreclose.

 

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

The county ordered people to deal with the trees, but the cost was so expensive, people just started walking away from their cabins and letting the county foreclose.

Yeah, I can see walking away if you have so many huge trees to take down it would cost more than your dwelling is worth to get it done.

In this case it was one tree. The agent said the tree cutter did come and tell them he'd do it for 6500$. The homeowner refused, gambled it wouldn't fall and lost. She's lucky she got to be on this show and didn't have to pay a cent of the measly 1900$ herself.

[Florinaldo]

A new episode today according to the screen blurb. The plaintiff suing her two aunts for damage to her car while she was in jail had the biggest case of Crrrrrazy Eyes I have seen in quite a while. It certainly confirms the aside by one of the defendants that "this girl is crazy".

She kept nodding in acquiescence to what the judges were saying but I think all that bobbing made what little brain she has slosh around too much and she had no real grasp of what she heard, constantly repeating her silly claims and story. She even managed to infuriate Uncle Mike!

I do not know how much of it is real and how much of it is her stragey for survival. She certainly came across as spoiled, entitled, self-absorbed and ready to live off other people's money and kindness.

Judge Acker quite rightly said after her post-verdict little outbust "now we see the road rage".

Edited June 15, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

A new episode today according to the screen blurb. The plaintiff suing her two aunts for damage to her car while she was in jail had the biggest case of Crrrrrazy Eyes I have seen in quite a while. It certainly confirms the aside by one of the defendants that "this girl is crazy".

She kept nodding in acquiescence to what the judges were saying but I think all that bobbing made what little brain she has slosh around too much and she had no real grasp of what she heard, constantly repeating her silly claims and story. She even managed to infuriate Uncle Mike!

I do not know how much of it is real and how much of it is her stragey for survival. She certainly came across as spoiled, entitled, self-absorbed and ready to live off other people's money and kindness.

Judge Acker quite rightly said after her post-verdict little outbust "now we see the road rage".

Wasn’t she a piece of work!  

I just loved how she kept preening throughout the case.  Nora Desmond would be proud.  

I wouldn’t be surprised if she made the news someday...for something far more serious than cracking a bat over someone’s head.

[AZChristian]

I loved seeing ALL of the judges' jaws drop when she was asked, "Were you charged with anything."

"Yes (blink, blink, blink, toss hair, smile sweetly), assault with a deadly weapon."

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I loved seeing ALL of the judges' jaws drop when she was asked, "Were you charged with anything."

"Yes (blink, blink, blink, toss hair, smile sweetly), assault with a deadly weapon."

Yes.  

And wasn’t she the coy one when asked gun? No.  Knife? No, a bat.  

You know she’s a lulu when Judge Mike raised his voice.  Sheesh.

[AZChristian]

11 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Yes.  

And wasn’t she the coy one when asked gun? No.  Knife? No, a bat.  

You know she’s a lulu when Judge Mike raised his voice.  Sheesh.

Actual quote, "No.  A bat was involved."  Not taking any accountability for the fact that she probably used the bat to bust out the windows of the other car, and was swinging at the other driver.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Actual quote, "No.  A bat was involved."  Not taking any accountability for the fact that she probably used the bat to bust out the windows of the other car, and was swinging at the other driver.

LOL. “A bat was involved”.

She refuses to take even the slightest responsibility for her actions.  I didn’t hear if she had children or not.  So sad.  

Can you imagine Princess in 30 years?  

[Florinaldo]

14 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Actual quote, "No.  A bat was involved." 

Her wording made it seem like an innocent baseball bat was casually strolling by the scene of the altercation and was then forced to get involved.

9 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

I didn’t hear if she had children or not.

She mentioned her daughter was in the car during the road rage incident.

10 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Can you imagine Princess in 30 years?  

She'll be an entitled old hag, endlessly stroking her carefully ironed out hair.

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/15/2020 at 10:58 PM, Florinaldo said:

She mentioned her daughter was in the car during the road rage incident.

It seems the more vile and trashier people are, the more fecund. I guess I need to catch up on Hot Bench.

On 6/15/2020 at 10:58 PM, Florinaldo said:

Her wording made it seem like an innocent baseball bat was casually strolling by the scene of the altercation and was then forced to get involved.

I've often noticed how people who commit violent crimes distance themselves from it. Instead of "I strangled her", it's "she was no longer breathing", or "the gun went off and he went down" instead of "I shot him to death."

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

It seems the more vile and trashier people are, the more fecund. I guess I need to catch up on Hot Bench.

I've often noticed how people who commit violent crimes distance themselves from it. Instead of "I strangled her", it's "she was no longer breathing", or "the gun went off and he went down" instead of "I shot him to death."

Or instead of I stabbed her it’s “she fell into the knife”.

I think I’m getting the hang of this. 

[AngelaHunter]

I continue to be ever more puzzled at people who choose to be landlords. Today's case with the pig-headed, stupid woman with the blank, ox-like stare suing her landlord left me yet more bemused. She had a one-year lease and two months before the end of it the landlord sent her notice he would not renew it and she needed to clear out.

This place was so awful. The "roof"(actually some ceiling tiles that take 2 minutes to put back in place) caved in and she was so frightened for her life she had to sleep in her livng room! In spite of these terribly hazardous conditions she really wanted to stay there and she was entitled to do that even when the landlord told her to leave. SHE decided she could stay there as a month-to-month tenant, as per some non-existent verbal agreement. Def needs to pay for her moving expenses, because...? She also decided that since she had to move she need not pay her last month's rent, even though her butt was firmly parked in the place. She wants her security deposit back although of course landlord kept it for unpaid rent.

No matter what the judges told her, in plain and blunt English, not one word of any of it penetrated her thick skull. Even Papa Mike couldn't excuse her outrageous claims.

[AZChristian]

Replay today of the woman whose three huskies ripped apart sheep at a nearby farm.  

"But they are gentle, loving animals.  And there are coyotes around.  And my father doesn't speak English, so he misspoke when he said we let them run free for exercise."

At the very end in the hallway, she said, "There are no pictures of my dogs doing this."

Honestly, if there had been a close-up video of the dogs in action killing the sheep, she would still have sworn they weren't her dogs.  

You can't fix irresponsible.

[AngelaHunter]

35 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Replay today of the woman whose three huskies ripped apart sheep at a nearby farm.  

I skipped this. Huskies ARE usually sweet and gentle with people. They are a primitive breed and can be highly predatory. Dogs are predators and sheep are prey. Owners don't need to have a very high IQ to figure this out and should have the sense to keep both the dogs and other people's animals safe. But I know expecting most of our litigants to have an ounce of brains or to take responsibility for anything is expecting way too much.

[AngelaHunter]

Catching up on watching. Who enjoyed JA's shredding of the vile hambeast who bought the ancient Ford Focus for double its value from plaintiff and then decided to stop paying for it because it crapped out?

She had it all going on: She's just a helpless female and doesn't know anything about cars (I guess her "little" boyfriend didn't either) Of course she never test drove it or took it to a mechanic! Ladies don't do that. Plaintiff knew her situation! She couldn't afford to get it checked. No one sat her down and showed her the Blue Book value of the beater! She couldn't look it up herself! Boohoo! She's just a little woman! None of this is her fault, and she has to keep mentioning plaintiff's going to a sober living facility, as though that's a reason not to pay for something she, as a mature adult, chose to buy.  JA starts off well: "You're some piece of work." So thoroughly did she, and then JDiM lace into her she took off in high dugeon to sulk, I guess,  before they came back with the verdict, which of course was awarding the full amount owed to P.

[DoctorK]

Okay, today's first case, tenant who didn't get out by the end of the month as required. I am confused, seems to me that these court shows have told me over the years and repeatedly that if your stuff is still in the apartment, you are still there, and that if you are there any part of the month, you owe for the month unless you can show that the landlord re-rented before the end of the month. I also did not like the way they pulled a "heads I win, tails you lose" move on the property manager. They suggested that he had no way to know if he would get the unit re-rented immediately (therefore no loss from the over stay) in order to get him to explain that his units re-rented almost immediately. Once they extracted that admission, they then used that to say that he wouldn't really have any loss so nothing for the month with the tenant's stuff still there (not even pro-rated). Plus they were indignant about using the security deposit for the rent that the manager believed was owed; judges have frequently allowed tenants being sued for unpaid rent to be credited with the security deposit in lieu of rent owed. Maybe I am just having a senior moment, or it is a new season and all of the previous seasons were just a dream (referring to Dallas I think, where they started off a new season showing that a major plot element (someone died) was really just one of the character's dream).

[DoctorK]

Help me out folks, according to the the Cox program guide, today's first case (vendor for struggling artists dropped from fair because of allegations of rape and allegedly causing a suicide) is a new show. However, I know that I have seen it before. Not only is it an unusual case but the plaintiff is really distinctive in appearance and in how he presented his case (including a really creepy video he made to send to defendants). I don't remember which court show had it on or when but I really believe this is a repeat or a scary senior moment on my part.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Help me out folks, according to the the Cox program guide, today's first case (vendor for struggling artists dropped from fair because of allegations of rape and allegedly causing a suicide) is a new show. However, I know that I have seen it before. Not only is it an unusual case but the plaintiff is really distinctive in appearance and in how he presented his case (including a really creepy video he made to send to defendants). I don't remember which court show had it on or when but I really believe this is a repeat or a scary senior moment on my part.

I'm on Cox, too . . . but our guide is not showing that as a new episode.  You are officially not yet senile.

[AngelaHunter]

I'm looking back on my recent DVR cases, trying to find an ep that sounds interesting and do find one from last week in which a stewardess is suing some handyman for wrecking her patio. I really like contractor cases so wanted to see it. What do I get? One half hour of Plexaderm Facial Putty pushing. WTF? I mean I know we now get mini-infomercials during a show (I've seen more of the uber-irritating Mr. Pillow - who has been elevated to some national hero status because he makes some damned pillows - than I ever wanted to) that are so long that even FF can't get past them quickly enough, but *surprise!* infomercial instead of the show? Really?

[AZChristian]

Buys a 1997 car for $700 or $800 (conflicting testimony).

Drives it for anywhere from a day to a week (conflicting testimony).

Breaks down.

Wants her money back . . . PLUS "pain and suffering" - so she's asking for $5,000.

Best line of the case from Judge Acker:  "$4,300 for pain and suffering?  Did you fall out and the car ran over you?"

[DoctorK]

An old rerun today, a rental management owner believes that his agent collecting rents fabricated a theft of the money. As always, this is a civil case, i.e., so preponderance of the evidence is all that is needed except that Corriero once again makes up his own rules and explicitly states the standard is "vast preponderance of the evidence"; he has also in the past invoked "beyond a reasonable doubt" during deliberations. I hope he wasn't as fast and loose when real people in real trials in front of him depended on him to follow the law. I do understand and sort of agree that the plaintiff's proof was weak, and I am pissed off that Judge DiMango did not finish up the question of the defendant's drivers license (which allegedly was stolen with the money) issue date - apparently it did not show the replacement date, just the original issue date. DiMango suggested that this may catch the defendant in a lie about the theft occurrence if the license was not replaced after the theft. DiMango said that she was going to check with the DMV where the defendant lived but just made a passing reference to the issue during deliberations but did not give an answer. If the license was not replaced after the theft (which the defendant said it was (after a brief hesitation)), then she was probably lying about the theft and the plaintiff should have won; if it was a replacement then I go along with the verdict because I don't think the defendant was smart enough to get a replacement license to support her story. Oh boy, this is a lot of "who shot John" for an ancient case, JJ would frown at this.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

An old rerun today, a rental management owner believes that his agent collecting rents fabricated a theft of the money.

Def was a big, scary brute. I liked how she owned up that she'd been arrested before for "fighting", just like some young punk overly fueled by burgeoning testosterone. I wouldn't want to fight her. Her hand-on-hip belligerence and back-talking the judges gave me the feeling she stole the money in spite of her telling the judges "I don't need money". Her texts complaining to the plaintiffs about how broke she is contradicted that.

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Corriero once again makes up his own rules and explicitly states the standard is "vast preponderance of the evidence"

I really don't know why he's there. The other two do their best to ignore him while still trying to remain respectful

 

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I hope he wasn't as fast and loose when real people in real trials in front of him depended on him to follow the law.

I have a feeling there are a lot of felons walking around freely because he felt sorry for them - "You didn't really mean to stab him 44 times, did you, young man? You just wanted a room of your own, isn't that right?"

[beverlyoc]

I'm in the DC area and Hot Bench airs from 3-4 in the afternoon.  I just saw a promo for Drew Barrymore's new talk show {!) premiering mid-September in that time slot.  Is Hot Bench going away?

[patty1h]

I get the show at 9AM where I am -- since HB is syndicated, it's hard to answer your question.  Hopefully, it could just be rescheduled or move to a different station.

[AZChristian]

Corriero is off his rocker. 

One of the cases today had an auto accident wherein the guilty party was obvious - a woman coming out of a driveway was hit by a car that had the right-of-way, because she pulled out in front of him.

They had a diagram of the street which was pretty typical - parking lane, lane of travel, two-way left turn lane, opposite direction lane of travel, parking lane.  As is usual, the left-turn lane had a solid line on the outside, with a dotted line inside on both sides.  

Corriero told the very young plaintiff that he did, in fact, have the right of way.  And part of the reason the defendant was responsible for the accident was that she was trying to cross a solid line which, according to Corriero, you are not allowed to do.  No, dumbass, you can't PASS on a solid line, but those center lanes are made to allow people to make left turns.  There was also a solid line to mark the bike lane from the lane of travel on both sides of the street.  Following Corriero's idiocy, anyone who wants to pull out of their driveway or away from curbside parking couldn't do it . . . because they'd have to cross a solid line.  The cause of the accident was that the defendant pulled out in front of the plaintiff.

The photo below is of the driveway and the street.

 

[jilliannatalia]

The lady who (with no medical or scientific qualifications) came up with the remedy of cannabis-infused epsom salts and oil  for lupus, among other ailments, is off her rocker.

[AngelaHunter]

Wow. Today we had the ancient Sugar Daddy, John, rockin' his pony tail, with two feral guttersnipes - "Tabatha" and her auntie Kim -  bleeding him dry. Do not drink every time one of the guttersnipes says "sexual relationship". JDiM got seriously grossed out and ordered them to stop saying that.

Auntie says that her great, dear, best friend of two years, Sugar Daddy, does everything for her. Wizened niece def had a mouthful of rotting stumps (meth mouth probably, judging from her legal problems and the fact that Aunt Kim has Tabatha's kids) auntie hits up ol' John for the 4K it will cost to give Tabatha a brand new new porcelain smile. Auntie apparently already has her own, luckily for Sugar Daddy, and says that the loan was "between them two". John has been giving def money constantly, for cigarettes, gas, etc, etc, but he and Kim try to say this was a loan. Both "ladies" have stringy hair hanging to their butts in the best trailer trash tradition and look seriously hard-rode, but John claims not by him! He's just a philanthropist, a kind of benevolent Santa Claus. Tabatha got cheesed off when Auntie took up with John and was gettin' it on with him, even though SHE claims she never had any relationship with the old guy other than using him as an ATM. Each little jackel says the other is lying. Judgment is zero. Oh, John! If you're looking for a little snogging, hire an honest prostitute. Think what your 4K would get you!

[AZChristian]

Today's first case - an 83-year-old woman who felt the seller of the house she bought hadn't done required repairs.  Judges found against her because being an 83-year-old woman is not a defense when she chose not to have a professional confirm required work was done before closing.

But . . . did anyone else notice the weird teeth on the defendant's friend who was a real estate agent?  Her two top front teeth had inverted triangles of bright white from the bottom of the teeth upward.  It was weird looking.  Any dentist I've ever seen makes an effort to match the existing enamel when they do repairs or fillings on front teeth.  This was NOT good.

[AngelaHunter]

We are now in an era where a woman can claim as a defense to paying for damage she did by declaring, "I'm a SINGLE MOTHER!" (shrug) In essence, if I have horrible judgment and pick some loser with whom to have unprotected sex, I am not liable for my own screwups. This was the defense used by def (who is 29 and looks about 40) for not fully paying the measly 700$ to plaintiff after she charged out of her car like a rampaging buffalo and smashed her car door into plaintiff's car. Of course def. had no insurance either, because, well - the SSM exemption. People should just understand and forgive.  She had better things on which to spend her salary than boring insurance and car repairs, like microbladed brows and immense fake eyelashes, among other necessities of life. Hey, she said she was sorry! What more do you want from her? She has a kid! Just buff it out and get over it.

[Taeolas]

Hot Bench has new episodes now, but there is no mention of COVID, and everyone seems to be very close together on the bench and in the audience. I don't know if these were filmed before the lockdown or if they are filmed at a location that allows less distancing. 

They do have a new announcer, which threw me off a little at first. 

Also the TV Guide seems a bit messed up; my PVR said we had 2 identical eps back to back (on a new network My38) instead of 2 new eps. The second episode actually had a black screen "This episode has disturbing matters. Viewer discretion advised" warning at the start. 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Taeolas said:

"This episode has disturbing matters. Viewer discretion advised" warning at the start. 

It warned of "Sexual matters". Never a warning about violence, but sex.... oh lala! Of course all references or descriptions of sexual activity were muted.

Weaselly old letch, Mr. Gold - landlord suing for rent and loans -  made poor, innocent, sweet young thing def, here in her low-cut dress, "uncomfortable" with his sexual comments and touching. Despite the horror of his egregious behavior she had consensual sex with him, took money from him for all sorts of things and even took a road trip with him. I bet she did do "something" for him in exchange for a pack of cigarettes. She said it didn't last long, but still - for a pack of smokes? I guess she wasn't bothered by his letching as much as she lets on. Then, when the Gold well ran dry, she got another man - her boss who she'd known a couple of months, to pay her rent. Little hothouse flower - who trades sex for money and stuff - has to depend on the kindness of strangers.

JDiM and JA caught on pretty quickly, but of course Papa Mike, Defender of Fair Damsels in Distress, thinks Mr.Gold took avantage of Sweet Young Thing, even though she willingly got it on with the old guy and in fact entered his room in the middle of the night and jumped on him in his bed because she needed a ride somewhere. "He's no gentleman", Papa huffs in chambers. "I wouldn't give him a cent!"

Papa Mike is outraged at this affront to Southern Belles, but luckily was outvoted and the little Miss has to pay the rent she owes. Oh, and her hubbyboo, looking like a dollar store Billy Ray Cyrus,  was here too, on the plaintiff's side. I guess that says a lot. Hearing that the two-bit Scarlett O'Hara has a daughter made me sad.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Papa Mike, Defender of Fair Damsels in Distress, thinks Mr.Gold took avantage of Sweet Young Thing, even though she willingly got it on with the old guy

Yeah, that was Corriero in action. I can't believe the other two judges let idiot Corriero get away with calling the defendant (looks like she is in her early thirties) a "child" as a justification of his condescending sexist argument that she was just an innocent victim. Corriero has to go, the sooner the better. He adds nothing, makes up rules as he goes along (in one case he actually based his argument on lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (this in a civil case!).

Edited September 14, 2020 by DoctorK
corrected "girl" to "child"

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

. I can't believe the other two judges let idiot Corriero get away with calling the defendant (looks like she is in her early thirties) a "girl" as a justification of his condescending sexist argument that she was just an innocent victim

It's infuriating. "Why are we here?" JDiM asks because she clocked the situation pretty damned quickly - that both of them were bargaining sexual favours to get what each wanted. Dirty old man got some young stuff. Hard-rode bimbo def got money and free stuff.  Yet Papa Mike feels the need to don his Sir Lancelot armour and defend poor little "girl" against predatory old guy. Utterly ridiculous. However, I'm sure many bimbos were very glad he was on the bench when they were being tried for their criminal deeds. "Oh, judge! Have mercy on me! I'm just a poor little girl and didn't know what I was doing!" I bet it worked every time.

[Florinaldo]

6 hours ago, Taeolas said:

Hot Bench has new episodes now, but there is no mention of COVID, and everyone seems to be very close together on the bench and in the audience.

It's the same production company as JJ's show, which was also not COVID-safe today.